Isn't your opposition to effective altruism a Drunk Mormon Hypothesis? The implication seems to be that EAs unintentionally cause harm that outweighs the good.
I don’t claim EAs do more harm than good. Rather, I claim that they work hard to do good within an imperfect moral framework, a framework that encourages them to assert strong influence over the whole world and therefore opens them up to close scrutiny.
I see, I got the impression it was intended as a stronger criticism. Phrased that way, it seems pretty banal? Every political movement is trying to assert strong influence over the world. Many religions have an explicit goal of converting as many people as possible.
Well, no, a lot of political movements are trying to exert strong local influence and don’t much care what happens in the rest of the world. That’s one of the core distinguishing features of EA. I don’t disagree that it’s similar in that regard to the religions that have the explicit goal of converting as many people as possible—but that puts it in a specific, limited subset of movements: not inherently bad, but demanding a response. In particular, as it is the default moral framework among people who think like me, I have strong reason to examine and explain why I depart from it.
This is a very good article, and it's a shame it has so little attention compared to some of your later posts.
It articulates very well the way I feel when Scott Alexander says thinks like Trump is bad for Trumpism https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/12/13/trump-a-setback-for-trumpism/ - sure, maybe it's true, or more true for Trump than many politicians, but is Trump *trying* to be bad for Trumpism? Doesn't it seem more likely that being in office surrounded by a hostile media means everything you do will be spun against you?
https://twitter.com/tracewoodgrains/status/1711050089282621789
Isn't your opposition to effective altruism a Drunk Mormon Hypothesis? The implication seems to be that EAs unintentionally cause harm that outweighs the good.
I don’t claim EAs do more harm than good. Rather, I claim that they work hard to do good within an imperfect moral framework, a framework that encourages them to assert strong influence over the whole world and therefore opens them up to close scrutiny.
I see, I got the impression it was intended as a stronger criticism. Phrased that way, it seems pretty banal? Every political movement is trying to assert strong influence over the world. Many religions have an explicit goal of converting as many people as possible.
Well, no, a lot of political movements are trying to exert strong local influence and don’t much care what happens in the rest of the world. That’s one of the core distinguishing features of EA. I don’t disagree that it’s similar in that regard to the religions that have the explicit goal of converting as many people as possible—but that puts it in a specific, limited subset of movements: not inherently bad, but demanding a response. In particular, as it is the default moral framework among people who think like me, I have strong reason to examine and explain why I depart from it.
Bro you are on fire. You're like the MacGyver of Jesse Singals.
I always look forward to reading your observations.
This is a very good article, and it's a shame it has so little attention compared to some of your later posts.
It articulates very well the way I feel when Scott Alexander says thinks like Trump is bad for Trumpism https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/12/13/trump-a-setback-for-trumpism/ - sure, maybe it's true, or more true for Trump than many politicians, but is Trump *trying* to be bad for Trumpism? Doesn't it seem more likely that being in office surrounded by a hostile media means everything you do will be spun against you?